Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

72

Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria:


Prospects for Increasing Nutrient Acquisition and Disease Control

Mario Tenuta, Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba


tenutam@ms.umanitoba.ca

This paper serves as an introduction to Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria or otherwise known as
PGPR. For in depth coverage of specific areas relating to PGPR the reader is directed to literature
citations given at the end of this paper.

The Rhizosphere
The thin layer of soil (about 1 to 2mm thick) surrounding crop roots and the volume of soil occupied by
roots is known as the rhizosphere. The shear extent of crop roots in soil dictates that a significant portion
of soil is actually within the rhizosphere (about 5 to 40% of soil in the rooting zone depending upon crop
root architecture). This zone is where the majority of soil microorganism (bacteria and fungi) reside. They
reside in the rhizosphere to utilize compounds and materials released from crop roots providing
microorganisms with energy. The majority of microorganisms present in the rhizosphere are thought to
have no direct consequence on plant growth and vigour. However there are many present that are
deleterious or beneficial to plant growth. Producers have exploited to great success the use of inoculants
of nitrogen fixing bacteria to limit the need for costly fertilizers in legume crops. As we strive to optimize
the performance of all crops, increasingly the value of inoculating soil with other microorganisms or
promoting the activity of residing beneficial microorganisms through management practices is being
explored.

What are PGPR?


One group of microorganisms which are beneficial to crops is bacteria that colonize roots or rhizosphere
soil of crop plants. These bacteria are referred to as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Joe
Kloepper presently at Auburn University in the United States coined the term in the later part of the 1980s
and has been a major player in understanding the mechanisms and application of PGPR in temperate
annual crop production. The science of PGPR is thus relatively young in comparison to nitrogen fixing
bacteria and momentarily applications to crop production are limited. The science is developing rapidly
and producers and the crop production industry wise to keep abreast of developments as they may reach
the dealer level in years to come.

Highly Qualified Canadian Public PGPR Researchers


This author is not an expert in PGPR. He is however a student of soil biology and values informing
producers on the intricate and fascinating events undertaken by organisms impacting upon crop
production. To learn more about PGPR or to establish research support and collaboration in PGPR, the
author directs the reader to world-class experts present in Canada (Table 1).
73

Table 1. Limited list of highly qualified Canadian public PGPR researchers.

Researcher Location Research Area

Chris Chanway Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia Forest biofertilizers, bioprotectants
Jim Germida Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan Biofertilizers
Russell Hynes Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan Biofertilizers, bioprotectants
Kevin Vessey Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba Biofertilizers
Dilantha Fernando Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba Bioprotectants
George Lazarovits AAFC, London Ontario Bioprotectants
Bernie Glick Department of Biology, University of Waterloo Biostimulants
Donald Smith Macdonald College, McGill University Biofertilizers
Hani Antoun Sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Laval University Rhizosphere ecology
Joe Kloepper Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn Bioprotectants (coined PGPR;
University used to work in Canada)

Mechanisms of PGPR Plant Growth Promotion


The mechanisms by which PGPR increase crop performance is not well understood. There are several
PGPR inoculants currently commercialized that seem to promote growth through at least one mechanism;
suppression of plant disease (termed Bioprotectants), improved nutrient acquisition (termed
Biofertilizers), or phytohormone production (termed Biostimulants). Inoculant development has been
most successful to deliver biological control agents of plant disease, that is organisms capable of killing
other organisms pathogenic or disease causing to crops. Bacteria in the genera Bacillus, Streptomyces,
Pseudomonas, Burkholderia and Agrobacterium are the biological control agents predominantly studied
and increasingly marketed. They suppress plant disease through at least one mechanism; induction of
systemic resistance, and production of siderophores or antibiotics. Exposure to the PGPR triggers a
defense response by the crop as if attacked by pathogenic organisms. The crop is thus armed and prepared
to mount a successful defense against eventual challenge by a pathogenic organism. Siderphores produced
by some PGPR scavenge heavy metal micronutrients in the rhizsophere (e.g. iron) starving pathogenic
organisms of proper nutrition to mount an attack of the crop. Interestingly, plants seem capable to still
acquire adequate micro-nutrient nutrition in the presence of these PGPR. Antibiotic producing PGPR
release compounds that prevent the growth of pathogens. The compounds produced are not unlike
antibiotics we take to rid of pathogens of human. Bioprotectants are currently being studied by the
laboratories of Dr. Fernando and Daayf in the Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba.

Biofertilizers are also available for increasing crop nutrient uptake of nitrogen from nitrogen fixing
bacteria associated with roots (Azospirillium), iron uptake from siderophore producing bacteria
(Pseudomonas), sulfur uptake from sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (Thiobacillus), and phosphorus uptake from
phosphate-mineral solubilizing bacteria (Bacillus, Pseudomonas). Nitrogen fixing biofertilizers provide
only a modest increase in crop nitrogen uptake (at best an increase of 20 lbs N per acre). Research is
being conducted by Dr. Vessey in the Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba to increase
the efficiency of nitrogen fixation by biofertilizers. The popular inoculants presently commercialized for
increasing phosphorus uptake through phosphorus solubilization (Penicillium and Aspergillus) and
phosphorus transfer directly to roots (mycorrhizae) are not bacteria but fungi. Species of Pseudomonas
and Bacillus can produce as yet not well characterized phytohormones or growth regulators that cause
crops to have greater amounts of fine roots which have the effect of increasing the absorptive surface of
plant roots for uptake of water and nutrients. These PGPR are referred to as Biostimulants and the
phytohormones they produce include indole-acetic acid, cytokinins, gibberellins and inhibitors of
ethylene production. Figure 1 depicts the relation of the PGPR mechanisms in relation to the effect on the
crop.
74

Increasingly More Direct Positive Effect on Plant Growth


Phytohormone Production
- Plant stimulants

Increased Nutrient Acquisition


- Biofertilizers
Control of Pathogens
- Bioprotectants

Figure 1. Spectrum of mechanisms of plant growth promotion by PGPR.

Development of PGPR Inoculants


Development of PGPR inoculants is not refined and very laborious. This definitely has contributed to the
lack of reliable inoculants available to market. The steps involved in bringing a PGPR to market is
outlined in Figure 2.

Current means of delivery of inoculants include peat, granular, liquid and wettable powder formulations
and are not unlike present delivery mechanisms for legume inoculants. However, growth promotion is
often inconsistent in the field compared to greenhouse or growth-chamber studies and is the dominant
barrier to widespread use of PGPR. A major determinant of growth promotion is degree of colonization of
the surface or interior of roots. The ability of a PGPR to establish in the rhizosphere is referred to as
rhizocompetence. A big part of the laboratory and greenhouse screening is to obtain types of PGPR with
the most rhizocompetence. However in field soil, environmental conditions and competition or
displacement by the myriad of organisms present in the rhizosphere limit colonization. Improving
delivery as well as selection of PGPR to thrive on specific crop varieties and specific soil types promises
more consistent crop performance response.
75

Isolation of bacteria from roots

Laboratory screening of putative PGPR against pathogen or


for plant growth promotion in soil-less culture

Greenhouse screening of putative PGPR to protect


plants against pathogens or promote growth in potted soil

Field screening of most effective putative PGPR in cropped


soil (crop variety and different soil types examined)

Refinement of commercial inoculum

Eco-toxicological testing and substantiation of PGPR claim


prior to registration

Registered product for commercial use

Figure 2. Steps involved in commercial development of PGPR


for crop production.

Limitations in the Use of PGPR


There are several limitations to the use of PGPR for commercial use. Primarily, efficacy is not reliable for
most PGPR. This is because the mechanism of action of the PGPR in promoting growth is not well
understood. Research needs also to be conducted determining if and how variations in soil type,
management practices (e.g. agrochemical use, rotations), and weather effect PGPR efficacy. Research
into PGPR is increasing, attempting to deal with these issues. From about 1988 when the term PGPR first
became coined, research activity as gauged by scientific publications has steadily increased (Figure 3). A
hurdle in PGPR development is the lack of field testing. This because conducting field trials is laborious,
costly and progression is slow as usually only one crop can be grown in a year. In light of this, researchers
resort to laboratory and greenhouse testing. Though valuable, as evident in Figure 2, field testing must be
76

conducted repeatedly for selection of vigorous PGPR organisms as well as to demonstrate efficacy using
different crop varieties, soil types and weather conditions. Of special note, bogus and unfounded efficacy
claims that abound in the PGPR inoculant industry in the United States, hampers product development.
Companies amounting to being basically snake-oil salespeople tarnish the industry and prevent legitimate
companies from raising capital required to bring effective products to market. Regulatory bodies in the
United States (Environmental Protection Agency) and Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency) have established procedures for the registration of PGPR.
Demonstration primarily of efficacy and safety are required prior to PGPR registration. Producers should
not use PGPR unless the product is registered and approved to be a Biofertilizer or Bioprotectant in
Canada. Currently there are no such products registered in Canada and only a handful in the United
States.

Recent advances in molecular techniques also are encouraging in that tools are becoming available to
determine the mechanism by which crop performance is improved using PGPR and track survival and
activity of PGPR organisms in soil and roots. The science of PGPR is at the stage where genetically
modified PGPR can be produced. PGPR with antibiotic, phytohormone and siderophore production can
be made. However until GMO-PGPR is accepted by regulators in response to public will, such products
will not be available commercially.

80

60 5-10% of these
Number of publications

field studies

40

20

0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Publication year (up to 06-2003)
Figure 3. The steady growth in PGPR research activity evident as scientific
publications (peer-reviewed articles). Results obtained by searching Biological
Abstracts Database using the keyword “Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria”.

Final Comments
The agronomics of crop production is ever changing. Recent developments has invigorated research into
commercialization of PGPR. These developments include the need for alternatives to soil fumigants to
control soilborne plant pathogens. Current fumigants are being banned or restricted in use or are too
77

costly for annual crop producers. Biofertilizers are being explored as a means to reduce fertilizer costs,
improve timing of nutrient availability and crop uptake to prevent contamination of water and air with
nutrients. The organic crop production industry requires new means to protect crops and supply nutrients.
As PGPR development is costly, commercialization will likely occur of products first in the United States
and then product registration in Canada. High value crops such a fruits and vegetables are to be targeted
for PGPR application as these producers may replace costly soil fumigants with as likely costly PGPR.

Further Readings:

Arshad, M. and Frankenberger, W.T. 1993. Microbial production of plant growth regulators. Pages 307-
348. In: In: Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental
Management (ed. Metting, R.B.). Marcel Dekker, New York.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations


Plant growth regulators
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/fereng/fereng-gene.shtml
Microbial supplements
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/fereng/tmemo/t-4-94e.shtml (last accessed Jan 24,
2004).

EPA Biopesticide Registration and Regulations (link to registered biopesticides)


http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/reg_of_biotech/eparegofbiotech.htm (last accessed
Jan 24, 2004).

Glass, D.J. 1993. Commercialization of soil microbial technologies. Pages 595-618. In: Soil Microbial
Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management (ed. Metting, R.B.).
Marcel Dekker, New York.

Great Plains Inoculant Forum 2003 (paper titles and abstracts of meeting held March 27 & 28 in
Saskatoon, SK)
http://www.inoculants.com/encyclopedia/gpif_index.html (last accessed Jan 24 2004).

Kloepper, J.W. 1993. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria as biological control agents. Pages 255-274.
In: In: Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management (ed.
Metting, R.B.). Marcel Dekker, New York.

Vessey, J.K. 2003. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant and Soil 255:571-586.

Walter, J.F. and Paau, A.S. 1993. Microbial production and formulation. Pages 579-594. In: In: Soil
Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management (ed. Metting,
R.B.). Marcel Dekker, New York.

Woeng, T., Lugtenberg, B. and Bloemberg, G. 2003. Mechanisms of biological control of


phytopathogenic fungi by Pseudomonas spp. Pages 173-225. In: Plant-Microbe Interactions
Volume 6 (eds. Stacey, G. and Keen, N.T.). American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.

Zehnder, G.W., Murphy, J.F., Sikora, E.J. and Kloepper, J.W. 2001. Application of rhizobacteria for
induced resistance. European Journal of Plant Pathology 107:39-50.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi